Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (118)	8/2/1998 11:16:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

The Jones case was supposed to be about sexual harrassment. Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, and others were supposed to indicate a pattern of behavior. Unlike most sexual harrassment cases, the governor/pres. was using rewards such as better jobs to elicit their not cooperating with investigations. The political reality was that Clinton could have confessed to the affair and admitted to his weak character earlier, and he would have been forgiven. He had already innoculated the public against this part of his personality in the 1992 election. He also benefitted from Gary Hart having pioneered the field in 1988. He underestimated the willingness of the public to forgive him. It would have innoculated himself from further attacks on this front. His wife wanted him to fight the Jones lawsuit believing that more lawsuits would be coming out of the woodwork if he confessed and settled. As for your comments about the Lewinsky case, you still don't get it. Sex in the office is not permissible in workplaces. The Oval Office is public property, not his bedroom. If he wanted to boink Monica, he should've used the personal quarters that he and Hillary occupy in the White House. That would be make it a personal matter not a workplace matter.

To: pezz who wrote (118)	8/2/1998 11:27:00 AM
From: Bill	Respond to of 13994

After listening to all your partisan jabs, I have a question for the three of you loyal Clinton supporters. Do you believe he had sex with Monica Lewinsky? If yes, you admit that he is a LIAR! He has spent 7 months lying every day about this sexual relationship. He's lied under oath, through his surrogates, and directly to the American people with his "that woman" speech. He alone has delayed Starr's investigation at least 7 months. If you believe he had sex, you agree to the above. If no (you believe he did not have sex with her), then your fantasies about his accomplishments and character will continue until the truth comes out. Come on Pezz, Mosko and Greenpeace. Tell us - yes or no.

To: pezz who wrote (118)	8/2/1998 11:50:00 AM
From: anyer	Respond to of 13994

The top lawyer in the land sets an example that it's OK to lie under oath [ about anything]. It's now OK to perjure yourself in a civil case because they will not prosecute; what Clinton and most lawyers already know. Now the little guy in the street sees this and follows the example. I've long felt the the legal system needs restructuring as it is antiquated and inefficient. Way too costly with all the lawyers delaying tactics. Who else in society gets paid for delaying and lying? We could start by eliminating all the swearing in of witnesses as it no longer matters. This would save very little time but at least would be a start at reform. This is a 19th century legal system trying to function in a new era. It's costly because they want it to stay that way; and it will become more costly because it's OK to lie. After OJ and now this the trial lawyers must be wondering how long they can continue to fool the public. If I do get into court, in the future, I'll not hesitate to lie. Divorce, custody, employment disputes; the Clinton emulator now wins. What a vision for society! Regards, Anyer